INTRODUCCIÓN A LA HISTORIA DE LA LENGUA INGLESA
David Ibáñez Salinas
Exercises on Milroy’s article about linguistic variation and change:
What is more common in language uniformity or variability?
Variability is more common, due to the fact that a language can be spoken in different areas within a country or even in different countries. Besides, time makes a language change, so the phenomenon of variability is inevitable.
What kinds of variability exist?
There are four main kinds of variability:
- Dialects (geographical variability)
- Registers (formal, informal, etc.)
- Historical variability
- Social variability
How do we decide if a particular group of speakers belong to a particular dialect or language?
We can distinguish between different groups of speakers depending on the way people use some vocabulary or pronounce some words.
Saussure emphasized the importance of synchronic descriptions of languages rather than diachronic. He and is disciples (structuralists) focused on language at different periods as finite entities. Is this reasonable?
No, because language is always changing and receiving new vocabulary and stuff. There is a constant development and I think that a diachronic description of it should be more reasonable.
The unattested states of language were seen as transitional stages in which the structure of a language was, as it were, disturbed. This made linguistic change look abnormal. Is it abnormal?
It is not abnormal, at all. As I said above, language changes take place constantly, it is something that must happen, that is happening right now because the language itself needs those changes to happen. So it is not an abnormal process, but a normal and inevitable one.
Can you think of any example of non-professional attitudes to your own language?
- Here in Spain some people from the south use to pronounce differently from the rest of the country (there are some more differences in other areas but are less noticeable). They would say “sentao” rather than “sentado”.
- The use of “la” instead of “le”: “La he pagado” / “Le he pagado < correct one
- To say “me se ha roto” instead of “se me ha roto” < correct one
- Not bringing verbs together correctly (in this case, adding a -s where it should not appear): “me dejastes” instead of “me dejaste”.
-”Dequeismo”, which consists on adding the word “de” where it should not go. Example: “Me dijo de que iba a venir” is wrong. “Me dijo que iba a venir” is correct.
Because he is speaking ironically.
Are non-standard dialects “incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant.”?
No, those dialects are not standardised, that’s all. That does not mean that they are incorrect or irregular, they are just marking (or representing) the differences that exist in people’s geographical situation within a country, which obviously becomes reflected in the use of language.
Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?
The first system is more irregular. However, in spite of this fact, it is the standard and the right one because “hisself” and “theirselves” are not considered grammatically correct.
“… much of the change generally accepted body of knowledge on which theories of change are based depends on quite narrow interpretations of written data and econtexutalized citation forms (whether written or spoken), rather than on observation of spoken language in context (situated speech). (Milroy 1992: 5) Why do you think this is so?
This can happen because some people speak following colloquialisms rather than adjusting to the rules. I mean, spoken language has had a lot of importance within the history of language and its development, because oral transmission of language has always helped people to acquire knowledge. So, though written changes are “easily” interpreted (more or less), speech-based ones usually have problems because changes in speech are more difficult to interpret (colloquialisms and stuff like that), so these theories are often based on decontextualized language.
Any description of a language involves norms? Think of the descriptions of your own language. Why is this so? For example: He ate the pie already is considered to be non-standard in which variety of English and perfectly acceptable in which other?
I think it all depends on the context a sentence is written or said. This is, “he ate the pie already” would not be correct in an academic or formal context, but it would be fully accepted if we were speaking in a colloquial situation (rules are not that important in colloquial speech).
What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?
A descriptive grammar is based on how a language is spoken nowadays, not looking at if that language is being used properly or not.
On the other hand, a prescriptive grammar tends to dictate rules about the use of language. If you do not follow those rules, you will be using language incorrectly.
Weinreich, Labov and Herzog’s (1968) empirical foundations of language change:
Constraints: what changes are possible and what are not
Embedding: how change spreads from a central point through a speech community
Evaluation: social responses to language change (prestige overt and covert attitudes to language, linguistic stereotyping and notions on correctness).
Transition: “the intervening stages which can be observed, or which must be posited, between any two forms of a language defined for a language community at different times” Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968: 101)
Actuation: Why particular changes take place at a particular time.
What do you think the “prestige motivation for change” and the “solidarity constraint” mean? How are they opposed?
The“prestige motivation for change” is based on social reasons, on how people sometimes try to show that they belong to an upper (generally) social status. I mean, this refers to how good or “interesting” some people see themselves in relation to other people, and they usually try to mark that difference through the use of language. Opposed to this, the “solidarity constraint” refers to the situations when we try to adapt our language depending on the context we are in, like trying to feel accepted in a community or just trying to feel equal to other people.
Sound change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York/ The change from long ā to ō in some dialects of English.
Sound change in the case of post-vocalic /r/ in New York is due to the fact mentioned above: the “prestige motivation for change” . People in New York didn’t use to pronounce the /r/ in New York, which is “against” the standard pronounciation in the USA, because they hardly ever drop the post-vocalic or final /r/ (as in car or far, where they pronounce /ca:r/ and fa:r/). However, in the last times, people tend to remark that /r/ in York, like trying to give more importance or “prestige” to the city.
The change from ā to ō has its origin in Old English. I mean, there are some words in nowadays English (e.g. home) that were not the same in Old English. In the case of “home”, we have that in Old English this word was “hām”. So the change ā to ō. This progress was not uniform; this sound change experimented a bigger development in the northwest of England (West Riding of Yorkshire, Lancashire) than in the northeast (East Yorkshire or Lincolnshire).
Actuation: Why did /k/ palatalize before certain front vowels? PrsE: cheese, German käse English/Norse doublets shirt/skirt?
It palatalized in order to establish a distinction between the word doublets. The process of palatalization occurs because some front vowels are located closer to the palate than others.
What is the biological metaphor in language change?
This is based on the fact that it is thought that a language is something that has its own life. It borns, it grows, and it dies or not. This is, it can be transmitted from one generation to the next, developing itself generation by generation.
What is the difference between internal and external histories of a language?
Internal histories refer to the language itself, I mean, morphological, phonological, grammatical issues, for example. On the other hand, external histories refer to the contexts in which a language develops itself (political, social or economic contexts).
Look up Neogrammarians and lexical diffusion. Why are they often found in the same paragraph or chapter?
They are often found in the same paragraph or chapter because they are opposed models. The Neogrammarians hypothesis states that sound change occurs without exceptions, while the lexical diffusion theory says that sound change is lexically gradual.
Look up social norm-enforcement, childish errors and slips of the tongue. What have they to do with language change?
These three concepts are related to the importance of social context within a language. Social norm-enforcement refers to the rules that some groups of people use for appropriate and inappropriate values, attitudes, or beliefs. Childish errors refer to the mistakes that kids make because they do not know how to use the language properly. A slip of tongue is an error that is produced when speakers don’t say what they wanted to, or when they pronounce a word incorrectly.